I had been looking forward for quite some time to two comedy experiences from the past week – seeing Mike Birbiglia live and seeing John Mulaney's new album/TV special. Birbiglia has the combination of a dry delivery, traditional joke structures, and the tendency to get weird that I really like. Mulaney's first album, the "criminally overlooked" The Top Part, is hands-down the best comedy album of the Obama years. His measured delivery and tenor voice on that disc helped make him one of the more unique and recognizable new comics in recent years. On the basis of that album I was beginning to wonder if John Mulaney might be the funniest man alive at the moment.
So I saw Birbiglia's live show and listened to Mulaney's new one (New In Town). I laughed at both. A few times I even laughed hard. But I can't hide my disappointment.
Unbeknownst to me, Birbiglia has been appearing on NPR quite a bit lately, which guaranteed that the audience in the large venue in which I saw him was predominantly old white people with a smattering of young hipster types. Accordingly, his 75 minute set was more of the one man show variety than a true stand-up act. He delivered the kind of material (dating is hard, being a kid was hard, etc etc) that might appeal to the widest possible audience. He definitely was funny, but he pushed the boundaries of…nothing, really. It's not even a clean-vs-dirty thing; there was profanity, a few sex jokes, and so on. In terms of the ground he covered, though, it was all very safe. Standard comedy tropes.
Mulaney's new special has him using an entirely new delivery – why he went from the slowest build-ups this side of Stephen Wright to this rapid fire approach is not clear – and a similar reliance on less creative subject matters. He's a bad driver. He has a girlfriend (and hilarity ensues). Wacky stuff happens when you live in New York City.
buy viagra super active generic buy viagra super active online over the counter
And he actually closes with an 8 minute ass/poop joke. There are laughs to be had, but nothing at all to make the listener say "Wow, this guy is something special."
Both of these guys are now far more popular than ever before. Birbiglia has a movie coming out and is selling out 1000-2000 seat venues with high ticket prices. Mulaney is a writer for SNL and is all over Comedy Central now. I doubt they are looking for any tips or have any reason to question the choices they've made recently. They've done what makes sense from a career perspective. If the choice is between doing dark, weird material and touring in a van 10 months per year or recording TV specials, getting high profile writing work, and making big money headlining, then the choice is pretty obvious. It saddens me, though. All of the weirdness, all of the edge, is gone. They feel flat compared to their earlier stuff.
Is that inevitable? I mean, is that what we have to do to become successful?
I'm not talking strictly about comedy here – any creative pursuit (and a lot of non-creative ones) has the same dynamics. Is this simply part of a maturation process or is it selling out, consciously or otherwise? It feels counterproductive to push the envelope for years in order to get noticed and then immediately retreat to what I like to call Meet the Parents territory – that is, a product three generations can enjoy simultaneously without anyone getting bored or offended.
Hell, if you put me in that position I'd probably make the same choice to soften the material up a little and make it more accessible. A skeptic might say that the previous sentence is a fancy way of saying "dumb it down", though, and he or she would have a point. I wish there was some magical world in which John Mulaney could be richly rewarded for being John Mulaney rather than for taking a step, however small, toward being more like everyone else. I don't want to sound like the 15 year old who shit-talks bands who sign with record labels for "selling out, man." These guys need to eat and I have learned quite well the lesson that comedy does not pay well if at all on the lower rungs of the ladder. It simply depresses me that the market for real creativity is so small. I wish that people who write, paint, play music, act, talk, or whatever didn't have to work within such narrow confines in order to earn recognition and achieve success.
Because being a starving artist is neat and all that, but so is being able to afford, you know, medical care and rent.
J. Dryden says:
There's always the flip-side to this dynamic: comics like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin, who started very safe, got enough momentum to pay the bills, and then decided, "Now–now, shit's gonna get real."
I agree that watching people go 'safe' in exchange for increased monetary compensation is a depressing thing (it's even weirder when going safe isn't really necessary for success–Liz Phair was doing just fine, thanks), but so long as art is a business, the guys who sign the checks are going to reward those performers who can bring in a bigger crowd of lowest-common-denominator-senses of 'taste' and 'thresholds of offense.' Can't blame them for treating this like it's all about money–to them, it is, and has to be, or the label folds, the theater closes, etc.
The great thing about art–and stand-up *is* art, no debate on that–is that you can do it for any number of reasons. And if you want to do it for money, hey, that's as good a reason as any. And if you want to do it for the rush you get from telling the truth, and enlightening strangers through laughter, terrific. But nobody promised you could do both. Choose, and enjoy your choice.
That said, when you stand on the side of the debate occupied loudly by Larry the Cable Guy, Dane Cook, and Jeff Dunham, you might want to consider donating a lot of your earnings to needy charities, just to achieve some kind of karmic balance, because you're elbow to elbow with Satan's Army.
Ed W. says:
I don't know that I'm with you on this one. I saw John Mulaney's Comedy Central special and liked it just fine. There was nothing in there like "best meal ever", but it was better than most that I've seen, and I've seen a shit-ton of random stand-ups perform on Comedy Central. Also, he *has* to be the world's leading expert on Law & Order-based humor, and while that may not count for a lot, it's nothing to sneeze at either.
Ben says:
Yeah, Mike Birbiglia's been doing that schtick for awhile. It's very much more a "one-man show" aesthetic than a "stand-up" one. Apparently This American Life won't broadcast an 8-minute stand-up set, but it will broadcast that same set if most of the funny jokes are removed and replaced with a story about your wife that ends in "I still don't believe in marriage, but I believe in her". So, yeah.
The Top Part, though . . . it was good, it was funny. The delivery was superb, and it wouldn't have worked as well as it did without it. Mulaney's a talented guy.
But to say that it had weirdness, or edge? Or that it was the best comedy album of the last few years? No. You can't really be edgy or weird if you're doing Anthony Jeselnik's impression of Steven Wright, only better than Jeselnik himself does it. And both of Louis CK's albums of the last few years had funnier moments and more sustained laughs. There's more at stake in CK's stuff, too, because it's more personal. Norm McDonald's newest album is better, too (the joke construction is phenomenal, plus it's funnier), and it's closer to what Mulaney does than CK's stuff.
I like Mulaney a lot though. He does a bit character on Nick Kroll's otherwise-awful special Thank You Very Cool that had me nearly pissing my pants.
Ben says:
Norm MacDonald, christ
Daniel says:
You can be a commercially successful artist at any endeavor and not compromise yourself too much. Look at Marc Maron. The guy has a successful podcast and gets decent gigs. He's not selling out twenty seat arenas, but I imagine he's doing fine. Guys like Posehn, Jeselnik, etc. seem to get decent work. Posehn was in "Devil's Rejects" and "Just Shoot Me." Dave Attell gets work, and he's not exactly easy on the ears of mainstream audiences.
Alan Moore has made a lot of dough in his career. "Watchmen" and his Swamp Thing run at DC made him a comics superstar. Along with "V for Vendetta" a little earlier. Alan Moore never gave a shit about conventional comic storytelling and went his own way with it. I don't think you have to compromise too much if you can manage to hit that sweet spot.
c u n d gulag says:
Back in the day, Bruce and Carlin could start out as more conventional comics and move to the extreme's, because the 'counterculture' was growing, and supported the people willing to take a chance.
But remember, Carlin ended up doing great – Bruce, not so much.
Now, the 'counter-counterculture' has been growing for years, and extremes are not as tolerated by the masses. And the existing 'counterculture' looks like it may not be large enough to sustain comedy in the way it's been structured for years – the comedy club route. You either get more mainstream, or exist at a level barely above subsistence, or slightly better.
All I can tell you is that I went to comedy clubs a few times, and didn't get any great thrill out of them, or the comics that were invited. I know that's a small sample-size, but I thought the experience which sooooo many people told me I would love, left me very under-whelmed. And I didn't see any reason to keep going.
I think the internet and podcast's, will have to become a stronger source of revenue for up-and-coming comics, and those who want to remain on the edge, as opposed to doing airplane food and girlfriend jokes for NPR codgers trying to remain hip.
I think that's the way it's starting to go.
And if you can prove you can sell podcasts, the money people may be more motivated to allow you into their venues. If you can make money for THEM being on the edge of the envelope, they will bring you in so that you can also make money for yourself.
Podcasting your shctick may take the place of the little comedy clubs that sustained Bruce, Carlin, and Pryor, on their way up.
My outlook my be off-the-wall, or stupid, because I'm about to turn 54, and have been out of touch on the music and comedy scenes for years.
It's ironic. When you're younger, you swear you'll never fall behind on the things you really love, like music and comedy – because that means you're getting older, and further and further out of touch with what's happening.
And then, you wake up one morning, after not paying attention for awhile, and you listen to a song, and think, "God, that sucks!," or see a new stand-up somewhere and think to yourself, "God, that's not funny!," and realize that somewhere along the road, you did get old. And now, no matter what you swore before, you find that you 'don't get it!" And you never will again.
So, take what I said earlier with a very large grain of salt. I'm now the old man screaming at the kids to 'get off my f*cking lawn!" So, wtf do I know?
Number Three says:
This is a tough one. My field is different (in some ways, though, polling is an art, too), but I find that as I get older, I'm much more likely to simply "give the client what they want" instead of "give the client what they need". In some cases, I've even stopped telling the client why what they're asking for is stupid.
Not sure that it's just about money. I think it takes an inordinate amount of willpower to put yourself out there, constantly, in a place where *most of the people you interact with don't get what you're saying*. It's hard to be hard to understand. I think I'm just tired of explaining, to no avail. Pitch a bit lower, maybe not LCD, but lower, and you have to explain less, and you get more positive reinforcement.
And the LCD is a fact. Most people, even bright people, have real limits. In a separate context, I used the word "carrion" in a document recently. Several smart people reviewed the document, and they all said, "This is great, but what does 'carrion' mean?" (Note that none of them looked it up.) So I changed the document to say "roadkill". Mark Twain would not approve (that's a lightning bug, not lightning, and the connotations are a bit off). Such is life, man.
c u n d gulag says:
#3,
And here I thought 'carrion' was meat in your luggage that airlines let you bring on board.
Btw – Now that Patrick McGoohan's dead, I am the new #6.
WHO is #1?
acer says:
That's the appeal of the "1000 True Fans" phenomenon.
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
Doug Stanhope seems to be capitalizing on this. After years of supporting his relentlessly dark stand-up with humiliating mainstream work, he left Los Angeles and now seems to make a decent living from touring and his website. Like Bill Hicks (and a lot of less-feelgood American artists, come to think of it), he also has an enormous fanbase in Europe.
Some people are probably compromised by a small taste of success. And a frustration with commercial failure can drive certain artists to create their best work. According to Maron, a lot of the energy in his early podcasts came from considering himself a washed-up loser.
JazzBumpa says:
As I read this, I was thinking about Bonnie Raitt. Once she became popular, her music became a hell of a lot less interesting.
Commercialization always and everywhere involves a transition towards the bland and safe.
I think it's almost axiomatic that as you broaden your demographic, your target audience becomes dumber, and they certainly become less esoteric.
Remember, 49.99% of the population is below average intelligence.
Cheers!
JzB
eastriver says:
Doug Stanhope. Are we fucking done here?
Pat says:
Re: Birbiglia. Could just be a sophomore slump. Patton Oswalt had one (well, really post-sophomore, after Werewolves), but his last hour saw his triumphant return.
(To: c u n d gulag, I see what you did there.)
Chicagojon says:
I know it's NPF but having just read an article about Obama, liberalism, and Obama the candidate vs. Obama the president I can't help but see a direct comparison between the rising comedian and the rising politician.
Sure, it's great to be edgy as a young senator turned presidential candidate and have sweeping visions and bold views about not bombing people all over the world, detaining people without charges or trials, & having progressive stances on health care and specifically women's access to reproductive care. Hell it even works to talk about bold new programs of fiscal responsibility and moon bases (well, maybe not moon bases…I dunno WTF he was thinking with that one).
All of these things are great for building a following and appearing original just as standing out as a comedian with unique shtick is a great way to get noticed. In either case once the stage is bigger, however, it's less about getting your message out and more about not not falling back to where you came from. So out go the clever deliveries and in come the trite I have a girlfriend jokes…gone is the rule of law and indefinite detentions are back…and most recently gone is the premise of women having rights to their own bodies and its the status quo to letting the church's rights be more important than women's rights.
I won't pretend to identify a simple cause for all of this, though the minute-by-minute media and access to information and polls about how things are perceived by others doesn't help, but ultimately and predictably popularity breeds 'meh'.
bb in GA says:
"Remember, 49.99% of the population is below average intelligence.
Cheers!
JzB"
The other bad news for the whole 100% is that the average is moving down :-(
//bb
Sluggo says:
@ number 3
Carrion—-the word of the day!!!!!
Being lazy, or maybe just efficient, I couldn't be bothered to email you to ask for a definition, so I just cut and pasted 'carrion' into Wikipedia.
You are truly surrounded by imbeciles.
Work harder not smarter folks!!!!
John T. Mickevich says:
Just remember — it's called Show Business, and not Show Hobby. The trick is to find the balance between the "Show" part and the "Business" part. Threading that needle, finding a unique voice within those confines, that's what makes the difference between a professional and an amateur. If you want to just do whatever you want with no consideration to the appeal to an audience, then don't be surprised if those audiences are small. And if you want to just appeal to the lowest common denominator and be a Blue Collar Comedy Jammer, then don't expect a lot of respect or critical praise.
Also remember that not everyone has an infinite fountain of genius ideas. Sometimes, artists just get tired, but have to keep on pushing, because, you know – they're trying to have a career. So they fall back a bit and rely on some tried-and-true tropes. But you know what? I bet that Birbiglia and Mulaney's airport and wife-so-stupid material would still be a lot better than most other hack comics you'd find on a tuesday night at the Laugh Factory.
c u n d gulag says:
Chicagojon,
In my opinion, that's a very, very good analogy.
My says:
Given the time it takes to come up with material, I don't feel that any comedian who is not totally invested in expressing who they are on a profound level can live up to a standard met by very few. I'm finding it hard to believe that Bill Hicks only came up once so far in this conversation, but if anyone is unaware, all one really needs to know about the "softening up material" dynamic is on full display within the context of Hicks's experience with David Letterman: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1993/11/01/1993_11_01_113_TNY_CARDS_000365503
Also, on a general tip re: selling out, I like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fIRo-UtdOU&feature=related
My says:
Just to put a bow on it: Everyone is selling out; it is merely a question of what one is selling and what price one demands and/or is willing to accept for what one is offering to which market(s)….
Spiffy McBang says:
Simply put, it takes more talent to make edgy stuff seem entertaining to a larger number of people. Artists of any stripe who have a lot of talent, but not that upper edge of super-talent, may purposely dumb it down to achieve greater success, but they may also simply throw something a little more mundane into their work for lack of anything else and find it hits the right notes. Then they travel that path to see how it goes and find wider success. (Obviously this can happen to that tiny top tier of artists as well if they just happen to see the same thing before their edgy work hits the big time.)
Is it "selling out"? In one case yes, the other no, but it looks the same from the outside either way. The law of averages, however, dictates that you're going to see this happen a lot more than a Louis C.K.-type blowing up. IMO, let's just appreciate the L.C.K.s and Stanhopes that do stick around.
Jack says:
Don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but that new "share" panel that you have added is screwing up the display of your blog on the iPhone, making it much more difficult to read. It overlaps the text.
Heywood J. says:
My hit it right on the head. First thing I thought of was Hooker with a Penis.
"All you know about me is what I sold you, dumbfuck.
I sold out long before you ever even heard my name.
I sold my soul to sell a record, dipshit — and then you bought one."
But I do remember Birbiglia from back in the day when I used to listen to the Bob & Tom morning radio show, and he was definitely one of the better ones. I guess they can't all be Louis CK in the end, though. CK seems to have held his ground like no one since Hicks.
Mark Velasquez says:
As an artist my entire life and having spent that life around musicians, photographers, sculptors, painters, etc, I've given this topic a lot of thought. What it comes down to is the creative person themselves. As long as the person making the work feels as though they are being true to themselves and feeling fulfilled in their work, who cares what others think? If people think those artists are selling out by changing their style, that's up to them, but if many others enjoy the work being made, who is anyone to say that they are wrong for liking it. All creative people think about this, or hopefully we all do, but in the end you just have to please yourself.
zeroreference says:
'Selling out' or not is a bad frame…….and so is 'selling out' vs 'success.' Better to focus on what's important and valuable to you.
N says:
We had a way for artists to succeed without having to give in to the needs of business. It was called the NEA. But back in the 90s Newtie and the nuts completely neutered the organization.
Dan says:
Maybe they are tapped out. Some great bits, but they have to keep writing new stuff, and this is really the best they've got now.
I am sure there may be sparks, but there may be no more raging wildfires.
SeaTea says:
I like the implication that "what pleases me is true art and what pleases the majority isn't". It's… interesting from a psychological point of view.